Michael Goodspeed critique of James Randi

[woodwater]

Here is the response from John Benneth:

"Technically he's right saying that no homeopath has ever applied. I applied, but I'm not a homeopath. Geroge Vithoulkas, a well known Greek homeopath, negotiated for five years with Randi over a clinical demonstration of homeopathy, but according to Randi, never sent in the application.
And he is certainly at liberty to say "If ANY homeopathic claim were demonstrated for us, we'd give the million-dollar prize" just as I am l;iberty to say that'll he'll never accept a demonstration of ANY homeopathic claim and the offer is a phony one.
It's just more of his bamboozle.
However . . amongst other numerous measures I think the demonstration to press now is autoradiography. It's quite simple. Two months exposure to a homeopathic solution on xray film leaves a burn mark from the subtle yet specific radiation being emitted.
Autoradiography was first done in 1908 using regular photogrpahic paper and a dilute of radium bromide (Boericke and Tafel), but recently its been done since 1985 by the French using xray film (Conte et al)
I'd be happy to negotiate this demonstration for Randi under the terms of my application filed in 1999. I've already apprised phsyicists who have been studying homeopathy, Tiller at Stanford and Roy at Penn State, and others about this test and am in regular correspondence with Rolland Conte.
So now what? Randi will dodge it unless he pressed by others, inclouding the media. Perhaps a few well publicized demos are needed now.
best wishes, and thanks for the upadates Winston. You're doing a great job!
John Benneth"

> John Benneth applied for the JREF challenge back in 1999

I looked at his blog, he's rambling about Randi and a challenge but I didn't
see any copy of the Randi application form. Where is the posted Xerox copy
of the JREF challenge application? Would he post it and resend it to James
Randi? Give him a call.

> John Benneth applied for the JREF challenge back in 1999

Is this the best you have? It was supposedly sent in 1999? That is so
lame. Then I'd have resubmitted it again by now, there's no excuse except
insincerity. Make sure the JREF challenge application is fully filled out.
Call Mr. Randi on specifics for your claim and the test. You and he have to
agree on a falsifiable test on the claim to be tested after all. And you
have to agree on expenses. Let Mr. Randi know the application is coming.
Make a Xerox copy of it, scan a PDF copy, and then formally register the
letter when mailed. Post it to him and email a PDF copy, too. Also post
the copy of the form on the web. Log your interactions and dates of action.

From what I've seen - honestly - you folks really do have a problem defining
your occult claim, pinning down what it does exactly, how it does it, and
designing a falsifiable test for it.

JT

[Winston]

I thought you knew, only people who have a recognized media presence are allowed to apply for the JREF challenge now. Those are the new rules. Benneth would not qualify under those rules.

John can't call Randi because whenever he does, Randi refuses to talk to him. Randi won't talk to me either. He thinks I'm Benneth's shill and that I plan to incriminate him as a pedofile, which isn't true. It was a misunderstanding back in the late 90's.

I spoke with Randi on the phone for about an hour. I should have taped it. He is a very intelligent person and speaker, but not a truth seeker and not objective.

I'll get Benneth's response for you. But I can't comment on any of this further, since I'm not involved.

[Winston]

Eric, here is Benneth's response:

----------------------------------------------

Hey, thanks Winston for opening this up again. I remember Eric Carlson. If memory serves me correctly, he's a professor of theoretical physics at Wake Forest University who likes to play the skeptic game with Randi ,and although I might be confusing him with someone else, received a "grant" of a thousand dollars from JREF. Carlson made the claim in Salon that there was only one chance in a billion that homeopathic remedies were efficacious, that they had any detectable independent action of their own that could be tested.
As a review of the literature reveals, that just simply isn't the case. And that was nine years ago. Much has happened since then. More and more of it is getting online now, most notably PUBMED.
Carlson and I corresponded at length over ONE physical measure, the dieletric stress test as reported by Brucato and Smith in the 1960's and Gay and Boiron in the 1950's. Carlson, however, kept coming to me for every detail, and then finally backed off from the test altoegether, complaining that he was only a theoretical physicist.
Let's parse out what he says:

Really? Benneth is happy to negotiate with Randi? When he was here
before, he went livid every time Randi was mentioned. He accused me of
dishonesty, of being in Randi's pay, and I can't remember what else.
Eventually I learned simply not to discuss Randi with him, he
immediately became so unreasonable it was virtually impossible to have
discussion with him. Benneth's hostile attitude towards Randi would
make him a terrible choice for negotiating anything with Randi. I like
to think I was unfailingly polite to him, and still found him almost
impossible to deal with.

First of all, how does he know what my emotional reaction to Randi was? How would he know if I went livid if we never met face to face? I tried talking to him on the phone once, and he flipped out, didn't want to talk about it. He has yet to discuss this outside of the classroom where his theories for homeoapthy can be falsified. If this is really about science and not about character assassination, then why didn't he find a competent physicist to put test the phsyical qualities of high dilutes when it was first noted? He doesn't need me to do that. He's treating science like its some kiund of political game.
His reference is Randi and a phoney offer for a million dollars and one assumption after another. My references are studies out of Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, Penn State, the University of Arizona, numerous other universities and clinics and a hundred years worth of physical, biochemical, biological and clinical reports.

Here's what Nobel prize winning phsyicist Brian Josephson has to say about Carlson's claims:


Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial, 27 September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure.

Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.

A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand.



BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON
University of Cambridge

Here's what Rustum Roy, chairman of the materials science department of Penn State, and the renowned phsyicist William Tiller of Stanford has to say about Carlson's theories for homeopathy:


This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical
efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection
against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no
difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no
differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central
paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls
properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of
composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of
the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent.
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials
Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf

[snip]

Be assured there's a lot more by these people and a host of others, and Carlson's left dangling by a thread held together by nothing more than his assertions his idiopathic theories for homeopathy. What's ironic about this is that he's the one making the psychological hypothesis for homeopathy, and he's not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whereas people like Professors Schwartz and Bell are, and they're two of the many people who have rolled up their sleeves to do phsyical tsts on homeopathy.

Now why is that? Why is it that someone who should have the interest and the ability above most others to test these things isn't, and instead is explaining these things away with a psychological argument for homeopathy? Am I the only one to question this? Has Carlson tried talking to any of these people? Has he tried reading one of their many papers on the subject? Or is he still jnust making excuses based on wehat he thinks Benneth said to Randi?


> So now what? Randi will dodge it unless he pressed by others, inclouding
> the media. Perhaps a few well publicized demos are needed now.
> best wishes, and thanks for the upadates Winston. You're doing a great job!
> John Benneth"

Has anyone made such an application yet? You can hardly blame him for
"dodging" if an application hasn't even been submitted. Benneth's many
year old application isn't appropriate, since it doesn't use this technique.

Eric Carlson


Well there's another load of crap. How is it that this guy can claim to be logical and then issue statements like that without expecting to be challenged, unless he'd rather fight over anything but the facts? How does he know what the terms were between Randi's and me were unless he is once againh speaking out of school?
Randi made it abundantly clear that the method of identification was not the question. The protocol that Randi agreed to was to simply identify high dilutes from their liquid vehicles, and it didn't matter how I did it, he said I could any method I wanted to, which is the way should be. So for Carlson to come up with his own terms and give a legal opinion on something he knows little about just shows you how far out in space this guy is. How it is that he's teaching what he thinks is physics is beyond me.
The claim still stands. They can't get away from it by saying that they don't like me because I don't kiss their butts. Tell Carlson to STFU and keep his no's out of science or prepare to come off looking dumber than he already has.
The proof of what I'm saying is that instead of leaping at a quick test like autradiography, this humbug is wasting his time talking about who said what to who. If he was really interested in the science of this thing he'd be putting it every test he could find rather than writing biographies.
If he wants to amend that view of himself, then set up an autoradiography test with people who can do it. If he's got money to spend, spend it there. Show some interest in the subject rather than just trying to get attention by putting everyone else down.
BENNETH

[woodwater]

Eric, here is Benneth's response:

----------------------------------------------

Hey, thanks Winston for opening this up again. I remember Eric Carlson. If memory serves me correctly, he's a professor of theoretical physics at Wake Forest University who likes to play the skeptic game with Randi ,and although I might be confusing him with someone else, received a "grant" of a thousand dollars from JREF. Carlson made the claim in Salon that there was only one chance in a billion that homeopathic remedies were efficacious, that they had any detectable independent action of their own that could be tested.
As a review of the literature reveals, that just simply isn't the case. And that was nine years ago. Much has happened since then. More and more of it is getting online now, most notably PUBMED.
Carlson and I corresponded at length over ONE physical measure, the dieletric stress test as reported by Brucato and Smith in the 1960's and Gay and Boiron in the 1950's. Carlson, however, kept coming to me for every detail, and then finally backed off from the test altoegether, complaining that he was only a theoretical physicist.
Let's parse out what he says:

Really? Benneth is happy to negotiate with Randi? When he was here
before, he went livid every time Randi was mentioned. He accused me of
dishonesty, of being in Randi's pay, and I can't remember what else.
Eventually I learned simply not to discuss Randi with him, he
immediately became so unreasonable it was virtually impossible to have
discussion with him. Benneth's hostile attitude towards Randi would
make him a terrible choice for negotiating anything with Randi. I like
to think I was unfailingly polite to him, and still found him almost
impossible to deal with.

First of all, how does he know what my emotional reaction to Randi was? How would he know if I went livid if we never met face to face? I tried talking to him on the phone once, and he flipped out, didn't want to talk about it. He has yet to discuss this outside of the classroom where his theories for homeoapthy can be falsified. If this is really about science and not about character assassination, then why didn't he find a competent physicist to put test the phsyical qualities of high dilutes when it was first noted? He doesn't need me to do that. He's treating science like its some kiund of political game.
His reference is Randi and a phoney offer for a million dollars and one assumption after another. My references are studies out of Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, Penn State, the University of Arizona, numerous other universities and clinics and a hundred years worth of physical, biochemical, biological and clinical reports.

Here's what Nobel prize winning phsyicist Brian Josephson has to say about Carlson's claims:


Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial, 27 September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure.

Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.

A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand.



BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON
University of Cambridge

Here's what Rustum Roy, chairman of the materials science department of Penn State, and the renowned phsyicist William Tiller of Stanford has to say about Carlson's theories for homeopathy:


This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical
efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection
against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no
difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no
differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central
paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls
properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of
composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of
the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent.
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials
Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf

[snip]

Be assured there's a lot more by these people and a host of others, and Carlson's left dangling by a thread held together by nothing more than his assertions his idiopathic theories for homeopathy. What's ironic about this is that he's the one making the psychological hypothesis for homeopathy, and he's not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whereas people like Professors Schwartz and Bell are, and they're two of the many people who have rolled up their sleeves to do phsyical tsts on homeopathy.

Now why is that? Why is it that someone who should have the interest and the ability above most others to test these things isn't, and instead is explaining these things away with a psychological argument for homeopathy? Am I the only one to question this? Has Carlson tried talking to any of these people? Has he tried reading one of their many papers on the subject? Or is he still jnust making excuses based on wehat he thinks Benneth said to Randi?


> So now what? Randi will dodge it unless he pressed by others, inclouding
> the media. Perhaps a few well publicized demos are needed now.
> best wishes, and thanks for the upadates Winston. You're doing a great job!
> John Benneth"

Has anyone made such an application yet? You can hardly blame him for
"dodging" if an application hasn't even been submitted. Benneth's many
year old application isn't appropriate, since it doesn't use this technique.

Eric Carlson


Well there's another load of crap. How is it that this guy can claim to be logical and then issue statements like that without expecting to be challenged, unless he'd rather fight over anything but the facts? How does he know what the terms were between Randi's and me were unless he is once againh speaking out of school?
Randi made it abundantly clear that the method of identification was not the question. The protocol that Randi agreed to was to simply identify high dilutes from their liquid vehicles, and it didn't matter how I did it, he said I could any method I wanted to, which is the way should be. So for Carlson to come up with his own terms and give a legal opinion on something he knows little about just shows you how far out in space this guy is. How it is that he's teaching what he thinks is physics is beyond me.
The claim still stands. They can't get away from it by saying that they don't like me because I don't kiss their butts. Tell Carlson to STFU and keep his no's out of science or prepare to come off looking dumber than he already has.
The proof of what I'm saying is that instead of leaping at a quick test like autradiography, this humbug is wasting his time talking about who said what to who. If he was really interested in the science of this thing he'd be putting it every test he could find rather than writing biographies.
If he wants to amend that view of himself, then set up an autoradiography test with people who can do it. If he's got money to spend, spend it there. Show some interest in the subject rather than just trying to get attention by putting everyone else down.
BENNETH

On 4/2/2009 12:41 PM, pj wrote:

Eric response:
>
>
> Eric, here is Benneth's response at happier abroad:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Hey, thanks Winston for opening this up again. I remember Eric Carlson.
> If memory serves me correctly, he's a professor of theoretical physics
> at Wake Forest University

Correct

> who likes to play the skeptic game with Randi

No, I take science pretty seriously.

> ,and although I might be confusing him with someone else, received a
> "grant" of a thousand dollars from JREF.

No, I've never received any money form JREF.

> Carlson made the claim in Salon
> that there was only one chance in a billion that homeopathic remedies
> were efficacious, that they had any detectable independent action of
> their own that could be tested.

I doubt I made this statement, but I certainly didn't make any such
claim in Salon. I'm assuming he's confusing me with someone else.

[snip]

> Carlson and I corresponded at length over ONE physical measure, the
> dieletric stress test as reported by Brucato and Smith in the 1960's and
> Gay and Boiron in the 1950's.

We discussed a variety of tests, but only one was discussed extensively
in terms of me performing a test for which I would be willing to reward him.

> Carlson, however, kept coming to me for
> every detail,

Yes, if I'm putting my money at stake, I want it well controlled.

> and then finally backed off from the test altoegether,

Not true.

> complaining that he was only a theoretical physicist.

This is simply not true. I offered to pay him if he performed a test
under controlled conditions. As I recall, it was $500 of prize money,
and up to $10k of reimbursement for expenses, but only if successful.
HE was the one that backed out. If anyone here recalls differently,
speak up.

He encouraged me to do the test myself, and wanted me to put graduate
students on it, something I refused to do, and I think this is the
comment he is recalling.

> Let's parse out what he says:
>
> Really? Benneth is happy to negotiate with Randi? When he was here
> before, he went livid every time Randi was mentioned. He accused me of
> dishonesty, of being in Randi's pay, and I can't remember what else.
> Eventually I learned simply not to discuss Randi with him, he
> immediately became so unreasonable it was virtually impossible to have
> discussion with him. Benneth's hostile attitude towards Randi would
> make him a terrible choice for negotiating anything with Randi. I like
> to think I was unfailingly polite to him, and still found him almost
> impossible to deal with.
>
> First of all, how does he know what my emotional reaction to Randi was?

From his wording and response. He went on a rant every time.

> How would he know if I went livid if we never met face to face?

livid: "enraged, furiously angry"

> I tried
> talking to him on the phone once, and he flipped out,

What does this mean? We had a brief, polite conversation where he said
he no longer wished to pursue my prize money, because it wasn't worth
the time and aggravation.

> didn't want to
> talk about it.

In what way did I refuse to talk about it? I have no clue what he is
thinking about here.

> He has yet to discuss this outside of the classroom where
> his theories for homeoapthy can be falsified.

My theories for homeopathy? What are they? I'm not in a classroom now.

> If this is really about
> science and not about character assassination, then why didn't he find a
> competent physicist to put test the phsyical qualities of high dilutes
> when it was first noted?

Do I really need to respond to this? I explained it to him at the time.

> He doesn't need me to do that. He's treating
> science like its some kiund of political game.
> His reference is Randi and a phoney offer for a million dollars and one
> assumption after another.

What reference is he referring to?

[snip]

> Here's what Nobel prize winning phsyicist Brian Josephson has to say
> about Carlson's claims:
>
> Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial, 27
> September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 5: criticisms centred around
> the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution
> after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since
> advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to
> molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's
> structure.

My guess is that this response is to something published in Salon, not
by me. Yes, of course, we all know that homeopathic solutions are
diluted beyond Avogadro's limit. We also know from chemical and
physical tests that water does not maintain long-range order.

> Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot
> have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases
> such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary
> fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show
> the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of
> my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after
> this particular point is taken into account.

You can't disprove things this way, but liquid crystals have long-range
order. Water does not. Does Josephson really not comprehend this?

> A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
> colleague Yolène Thomas and by others to be well established
> experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of
> greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the
> limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from
> hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss
> them out of hand.

Um, they were tested and disproven. As I'm sure Benneth, and presumably
Josephson, already know.

>
> BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON
> University of Cambridge
>
> Here's what Rustum Roy,

Okay, this argument by authority is getting lame, and there's no reason
to believe ANY of these people is responding to my claims, so I'm
snipping the rest.

Eric Carlson


__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (31) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity
2New Members
Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.
.

__,_._,___


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.39/2038 - Release Date: 04/02/09 19:07:00

[Winston]

Response from Benneth:

From Eric Carlson:


Initially, Benneth did not send in a protocol, which is required when
you send in an application. He posted a protocol online, but I don't
know if he ever sent it in. I pointed out several flaws in the
protocol, and he got angry at me.

Calrson is writing as if he knows what transpired between Randi and me, and then he said a protocol was posted and then says he doesn't know whether it was sent in. e's dpoing exactly what Randi does. He's presenting more of his magical thinking, caliming that things don't exist when they do.
Randi and exchanged over a hundred emails onthis subject, with Randi avoiding collaboration on a test in favor of making ad homonym statements, as if my claims are all idiopathic. Carlson would rather waxc profane about me than talk about the reported evidence andd the methodolgy for obtaining it.
I admit, that at first I was drawn into their idiopathic hypothesis for homeopathy and that there were no known methodologies for identifying high dilutes, but the more I studied the subject the more I discovered that there are numerous indices. The problem is not in coming up with a test. The problem is in demonstrating it to Randi.
Carlson, like Randi, has turned what they claim is real science into a greased pole contest. As soon as it looks like someone is approaching with climbing spikes they withdraw the offer, raise the bar or change its terms, and they want to argue and say it never happened. Meanwhile, a very interesting test for homeopathy is ignored..
Randi first was very specific in accepting a protocol for homeopathy. He said, in writing to me, witnessed by others, that what would win his million dollars is a method by which to identify homeopathic remedies.
The bottom line here is that if Professor Carlson, like Randi, was truly committed to finding out aboutthe truth of the matter he would respind to the literature, past, present and future and push for more testing in four modalities, biochemistry, biology, phsyics and clincal. They wouldn't bother with guys like me, they wouldn't have to, because they have as much access to the literautre as they do. In fact, they should be much more resourcefull in making this study, given their respective positions and reputation.
What's happening is that in a very negative, abusive way, these men are presenting what amounts to nothing more than their own psychological hypothesis for homeopathy. Their objective here is not tomake a scientific investigation of anything, it is to simply damage the reputation of others.
If this isn't so, then do the science. Acknowledge their own preconditions, and because of their obvious prejudice, recuse themselves from any hands on involvement of testing, and either accept the results from the literature or commission replications of it.
Like Einstein, Professor Carlson is a theoretical physicist einstein did not try to obtain hard evidence for his theory of relativity, he pressed others who were expereinced in obtaining the needed evidence to do it for him, and after several failures they did, conlcusively, in western Australia.
Now Professor Crlson has been rpesented with a reported method of analyzing homeopathic remedies using autoradiography. The technique was first reported in the literature in 1908 by Boericke and Tafel using a dilute of radium bromide and photographic film. In 1985 Dr. Yves Lasne, a doctor of medicine and science, reported that x-ray film is sensitive to exposure from high dilutes. Subsequently, that testing was repeated by Rolland Conte, a PhD in applied physics, and extended to analysis using nuclear magentic resonance and adanced statistical methods, in collaboration with methematician Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot, who provided the Ecoserm software. From their results these men came up with nuclear theory for high dilutes and published their results. Has Carlson, with all his denunciations of homeopathy read that report?
Now instead of arguing ove the results or trying to defame these men, why wouldn't any real scientist not want to put the first part of that analysis tot he test? WHy wouldn't Carlson, forhis own edification, not want to see if he could repeat the simply autoradiogrpahy test with a piece of e-ray film. Why is he talking about some guy in Portland Oregon and the greased pole contest he apploied for 10 years ago when he could be doing the science right now. Why doesn't he have Lasne and Congte on the phone, asking them for details as to how to do the autoradiography test.
Has Calrson read the Structure of Liquid Water by ROy and et al? Has he read the silca hypothesis out of Harvard?




> John Benneth applied for the JREF challenge back in 1999

I looked at his blog, he's rambling about Randi and a challenge but I didn't
see any copy of the Randi application form. Where is the posted Xerox copy
of the JREF challenge application? Would he post it and resend it to James
Randi? Give him a call.

I did call Randi. He kept hanging up on me. When I finally did get a word with him, he cursed at me and slammed the phone down. Now we're going to hear about all the reasons for that. But where's the testing?



> John Benneth applied for the JREF challenge back in 1999

Is this the best you have? It was supposedly sent in 1999? That is so
lame. Then I'd have resubmitted it again by now, there's no excuse except
insincerity. Make sure the JREF challenge application is fully filled out.

What a load of bullshit. Carlson knows perfectly well I applied, he was even in touch with Randi about it. Randi first predicted I wouldn't appoly, then when I did, he stalled and stalled and finally, after beikng pressed on it by Syd Baumel and Alain Jean Mairet, admitted that I was an applicant. Jacques Beneveniste and Brian Josephson both sent Randi back to me when he tried to dodge my test for theirs. Even the BBC wrote to me for permission to run their test.
But why shoulddthat be a concern to Professor Carlson? Where's the testing? If he's unwilling to do it or accept the results of tohers, then STFU!


Call Mr. Randi on specifics for your claim and the test.

I already did. Randi made it perfectly clear in writing and word that he won't communicate with me. He said I was crazy, that it was because of me that GS ordered him to remove their name from his website, and that I needed to send him a notarized form from a clincal psycholoist before he'd communicate with me any further. I did him one better. I got a clincal psychologcist who is also a professor of psychology to interview me and then personally visit with Randi in Ft. Lauderdale, where Randi continued to insist that I was crazy.
But once again, where's the test?

You and he have to
agree on a falsifiable test on the claim to be tested after all.

Carlson isn't an attorney for Randi, is he? Is Carlson representing Randi now to me? Randi has issued a unilateral challenge to defame. A challenge is not an agreement. A challenge is an invitation to a duel, an argument, a fight, and that's exactly what he's done with everyone who's tried to apply in a way that may threaten to win. Randi has never signed the Challenge with anyone, not even Horizon. He can't sign it, because its not a legal agreeemnt and he knows it and Carlson should know it to.

>And you
>have to agree on expenses. Let Mr. Randi know the application is coming.

Please, give it up. Ask Randi if I ever applied. You can confirm it with Syd Baumel, Alain Jean Mairet and Wesley Thuro of Toronto.

>Make a Xerox copy of it, scan a PDF copy, and then formally register the
>letter when mailed. Post it to him and email a PDF copy, too. Also post
>the copy of the form on the web. Log your interactions and dates of action.

>From what I've seen - honestly - you folks really do have a problem defining
>your occult claim, pinning down what it does exactly, how it does it, and
>designing a falsifiable test for it.

No, Carlson is the one with the problem. He's the one with the crazy theories now. If I took a physics class from that guy I'd be asking for my money back. In fact, it makes me wonder about Wake Forest University. What kind of a dump is that, anyway? Is that a degree mill? Do people get those degrees by just buying them? Or a bunch of dumb kids paid to sit there under the guise of scholarships and listen to and agree with Carlson? These guys are totally living in their own world! If they looked at a real scientific study they'd go blind.

>JT

Whos'"JT?" I thought you said this was from Eric Carlson.
So now we get to hear some more badmouthing from them. Count me out. Don't bother me with these idots anymore. They don't know what they're talking about. WIth one excpetion. Using similar terms as in Randi's challenge. if Carlson can prove to me that Randi''s making a valid offer, I'll give him a $100,000.

For details, watch this video and you'll see just how ridiculous Randi's "challenge" is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE_UzmtUH7g

In the meantime, where's Carlson's test?

I know, it's not his job, he doesn't have enough time, I'm the only guy who he'll look at the results from, right, becaue I'm the only guy in the world now who can do autoradiography.

All roads to tests for homeopathy lead to

JOHN BENNETH

PS: Questions? ASK RANDI. He'll tell you what you want to hear.

[Winston]

From Benneth wondering where Carlson went:

"So what's happened to Professor Carlson? Has he taken his keyboard and run? I'd like to see his face when he saw all those studies he said didn't exist. Is that more appeals to authority? Or is he working on some long drawn out response, or perhaps he's waiting in line at Kmart for ammunition to load his small but very deadly revolver with, to do the right thing?
I'm really, where is he on this? has anyone checked on him lately? Maybe he's holed up in his very small but deadly apartment. I don't suppose anyone has noticed any strange smells coming from there . . "

-----------------------------------------------

"Well? Here I am the morning of April 7th, 2009, after having posted extensive online references for homeopathy. I'm waiting for a response from Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University who claims to have offered to pay $10,500 for me to do a provide a physical demonstration that would identify homeopathic dilutes from their vehicle, just as Randi has offered to pay me a million for the same thing, and yet when it comes to facing the literature, numerous reports of the in vitro, in vivo, physical structure and action of homeopathic dilutes, Carlson is suddenly silent, now he has nothing to say?
He could start with an explanation, of why it is that a theoretical physicist has taken such an obstructionist view of a 200 year old doctrine that has been demonstrated biochemcially, biologically, physically and clinically.
In the face of reports from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, U of Arizona and numerous other sources that comprehensively falsify the placebo theory for homeoapthy, why isn't he spending his $10,500 to travel to Lyon France and sit at the feet of Rolland Conte to better understand the published nuclear theory for high dilutes, and witness the autoradiography test, or just read the book and do it himself? From France he could go to the University of Bologna and investigate the agronomy studies there, and the thermoluminescence test by the Italians.
What amazes me is that here a professor of theoretical physics is putting forward by ngative implication a psychological hypothesis for the action of high dilutes and not seeking to falsify it by replicating any number of tests that could easily be done on plants.
I went over the dielectric test exhaustively with this guy, trying to answer all his questions, only to read him keep putting this all back on me, as if I was the only person making in vitro claims for homeopathy, as if I was the only guy who could prove it, as if my report would be the first.
Isn't it obvious? These people like Carlson have been doing the same thing men have been doing for centuries if not the millenia. They take a position of negative authority, claiming tobe "skeptics", but somehow their impeccable reasoning is never apllied to their own suppositions.
Isn't skepticism supposed to be the position that nothing can be truly known to be true? So shouldn't true skeptics be just as skeptical of their own assertions, before putting them to the test? But if Carlson were to do that, look what he loses. He suddenly finds himself in a position of having to explain away growing evidence that contradicts him, or why it is he changed his mind if he acepts it and admit that he was wrong in asserting that there was no "science" to support the action of high dilutes. It is much easier, in the face of the science he said didn't and couldn't exist, to simply slink away, just as he's doing now.
But it's not so easy, because now he's put his foot into it again and I want him to keep it there for a while.
Why does it matter to take Carlson to task? Because Carlson presents himself as a teacher, and Carlson is typical of an attitude that has infected millions of people that makes scientific progress painfully slow and suicide high among those who take on his screwed up, self contradicting reasoning. To simply investigate any anomalous phenomenon means that inevitably you will run up against the likes of Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, who will try to derail you from what constitutes real scientific inquiry. He will try to convince you that you have ulterior motives and delusions, he will ridicule you by making a phony offer to reward you for evidence while he does everything he can to complicate your investigation, to defame you, to take up your time defending your reputation, to impoverish you by making you appear incompetent or fraudulent to others.
And so this is the world we live in, full of Carlsons, dream robbers. It should be understood why it is that "skeptics" have the highest rate of suicide, and that's why people like Carlson, Randi and millions of others need to be held to account for their interference, defamation, ridicule, false offers, phony challenges and obstructionism.
JOHN BENNETH"

[woodwater]

From Benneth wondering where Carlson went:

"So what's happened to Professor Carlson? Has he taken his keyboard and run? I'd like to see his face when he saw all those studies he said didn't exist. Is that more appeals to authority? Or is he working on some long drawn out response, or perhaps he's waiting in line at Kmart for ammunition to load his small but very deadly revolver with, to do the right thing?
I'm really, where is he on this? has anyone checked on him lately? Maybe he's holed up in his very small but deadly apartment. I don't suppose anyone has noticed any strange smells coming from there . . "

-----------------------------------------------

"Well? Here I am the morning of April 7th, 2009, after having posted extensive online references for homeopathy. I'm waiting for a response from Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University who claims to have offered to pay $10,500 for me to do a provide a physical demonstration that would identify homeopathic dilutes from their vehicle, just as Randi has offered to pay me a million for the same thing, and yet when it comes to facing the literature, numerous reports of the in vitro, in vivo, physical structure and action of homeopathic dilutes, Carlson is suddenly silent, now he has nothing to say?
He could start with an explanation, of why it is that a theoretical physicist has taken such an obstructionist view of a 200 year old doctrine that has been demonstrated biochemcially, biologically, physically and clinically.
In the face of reports from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, U of Arizona and numerous other sources that comprehensively falsify the placebo theory for homeoapthy, why isn't he spending his $10,500 to travel to Lyon France and sit at the feet of Rolland Conte to better understand the published nuclear theory for high dilutes, and witness the autoradiography test, or just read the book and do it himself? From France he could go to the University of Bologna and investigate the agronomy studies there, and the thermoluminescence test by the Italians.
What amazes me is that here a professor of theoretical physics is putting forward by ngative implication a psychological hypothesis for the action of high dilutes and not seeking to falsify it by replicating any number of tests that could easily be done on plants.
I went over the dielectric test exhaustively with this guy, trying to answer all his questions, only to read him keep putting this all back on me, as if I was the only person making in vitro claims for homeopathy, as if I was the only guy who could prove it, as if my report would be the first.
Isn't it obvious? These people like Carlson have been doing the same thing men have been doing for centuries if not the millenia. They take a position of negative authority, claiming tobe "skeptics", but somehow their impeccable reasoning is never apllied to their own suppositions.
Isn't skepticism supposed to be the position that nothing can be truly known to be true? So shouldn't true skeptics be just as skeptical of their own assertions, before putting them to the test? But if Carlson were to do that, look what he loses. He suddenly finds himself in a position of having to explain away growing evidence that contradicts him, or why it is he changed his mind if he acepts it and admit that he was wrong in asserting that there was no "science" to support the action of high dilutes. It is much easier, in the face of the science he said didn't and couldn't exist, to simply slink away, just as he's doing now.
But it's not so easy, because now he's put his foot into it again and I want him to keep it there for a while.
Why does it matter to take Carlson to task? Because Carlson presents himself as a teacher, and Carlson is typical of an attitude that has infected millions of people that makes scientific progress painfully slow and suicide high among those who take on his screwed up, self contradicting reasoning. To simply investigate any anomalous phenomenon means that inevitably you will run up against the likes of Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, who will try to derail you from what constitutes real scientific inquiry. He will try to convince you that you have ulterior motives and delusions, he will ridicule you by making a phony offer to reward you for evidence while he does everything he can to complicate your investigation, to defame you, to take up your time defending your reputation, to impoverish you by making you appear incompetent or fraudulent to others.
And so this is the world we live in, full of Carlsons, dream robbers. It should be understood why it is that "skeptics" have the highest rate of suicide, and that's why people like Carlson, Randi and millions of others need to be held to account for their interference, defamation, ridicule, false offers, phony challenges and obstructionism.
JOHN BENNETH"

No he was annoyed with the misquote below.My mistake

>JT

Whos'"JT?" I thought you said this was from Eric Carlson.
So now we get to hear some more badmouthing from them. Count me out. Don't bother me with these idots anymore. They don't know what they're talking about. WIth one excpetion. Using similar terms as in Randi's challenge. if Carlson can prove to me that Randi''s making a valid offer, I'll give him a $100,000.

[woodwater]

From Benneth wondering where Carlson went:

"So what's happened to Professor Carlson? Has he taken his keyboard and run? I'd like to see his face when he saw all those studies he said didn't exist. Is that more appeals to authority? Or is he working on some long drawn out response, or perhaps he's waiting in line at Kmart for ammunition to load his small but very deadly revolver with, to do the right thing?
I'm really, where is he on this? has anyone checked on him lately? Maybe he's holed up in his very small but deadly apartment. I don't suppose anyone has noticed any strange smells coming from there . . "

-----------------------------------------------

"Well? Here I am the morning of April 7th, 2009, after having posted extensive online references for homeopathy. I'm waiting for a response from Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University who claims to have offered to pay $10,500 for me to do a provide a physical demonstration that would identify homeopathic dilutes from their vehicle, just as Randi has offered to pay me a million for the same thing, and yet when it comes to facing the literature, numerous reports of the in vitro, in vivo, physical structure and action of homeopathic dilutes, Carlson is suddenly silent, now he has nothing to say?
He could start with an explanation, of why it is that a theoretical physicist has taken such an obstructionist view of a 200 year old doctrine that has been demonstrated biochemcially, biologically, physically and clinically.
In the face of reports from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, U of Arizona and numerous other sources that comprehensively falsify the placebo theory for homeoapthy, why isn't he spending his $10,500 to travel to Lyon France and sit at the feet of Rolland Conte to better understand the published nuclear theory for high dilutes, and witness the autoradiography test, or just read the book and do it himself? From France he could go to the University of Bologna and investigate the agronomy studies there, and the thermoluminescence test by the Italians.
What amazes me is that here a professor of theoretical physics is putting forward by ngative implication a psychological hypothesis for the action of high dilutes and not seeking to falsify it by replicating any number of tests that could easily be done on plants.
I went over the dielectric test exhaustively with this guy, trying to answer all his questions, only to read him keep putting this all back on me, as if I was the only person making in vitro claims for homeopathy, as if I was the only guy who could prove it, as if my report would be the first.
Isn't it obvious? These people like Carlson have been doing the same thing men have been doing for centuries if not the millenia. They take a position of negative authority, claiming tobe "skeptics", but somehow their impeccable reasoning is never apllied to their own suppositions.
Isn't skepticism supposed to be the position that nothing can be truly known to be true? So shouldn't true skeptics be just as skeptical of their own assertions, before putting them to the test? But if Carlson were to do that, look what he loses. He suddenly finds himself in a position of having to explain away growing evidence that contradicts him, or why it is he changed his mind if he acepts it and admit that he was wrong in asserting that there was no "science" to support the action of high dilutes. It is much easier, in the face of the science he said didn't and couldn't exist, to simply slink away, just as he's doing now.
But it's not so easy, because now he's put his foot into it again and I want him to keep it there for a while.
Why does it matter to take Carlson to task? Because Carlson presents himself as a teacher, and Carlson is typical of an attitude that has infected millions of people that makes scientific progress painfully slow and suicide high among those who take on his screwed up, self contradicting reasoning. To simply investigate any anomalous phenomenon means that inevitably you will run up against the likes of Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, who will try to derail you from what constitutes real scientific inquiry. He will try to convince you that you have ulterior motives and delusions, he will ridicule you by making a phony offer to reward you for evidence while he does everything he can to complicate your investigation, to defame you, to take up your time defending your reputation, to impoverish you by making you appear incompetent or fraudulent to others.
And so this is the world we live in, full of Carlsons, dream robbers. It should be understood why it is that "skeptics" have the highest rate of suicide, and that's why people like Carlson, Randi and millions of others need to be held to account for their interference, defamation, ridicule, false offers, phony challenges and obstructionism.
JOHN BENNETH"

i think bennet should join skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com

PJ,

I already responded that I don't want to communicate with Mr. Benneth
via an intermediary. If you wish to speak for YOURSELF I will respond.
But unless you choose to present your OWN opinions on this forum,
rather than simply copying and pasting responses from someone else, I
refuse to participate.

If you continue this action, I am inclined to ban you from this list.
Provoking fights between people who aren't on the same forum is
counterproductive.

Many of Mr. Benneth's comments seem to be responses to things that were
attributed to me, but I never said. I believe the manner in which you
have conflated my comments with others has contributed to this
misunderstanding.

Eric Carlson

[woodwater]

From Benneth wondering where Carlson went:

"So what's happened to Professor Carlson? Has he taken his keyboard and run? I'd like to see his face when he saw all those studies he said didn't exist. Is that more appeals to authority? Or is he working on some long drawn out response, or perhaps he's waiting in line at Kmart for ammunition to load his small but very deadly revolver with, to do the right thing?
I'm really, where is he on this? has anyone checked on him lately? Maybe he's holed up in his very small but deadly apartment. I don't suppose anyone has noticed any strange smells coming from there . . "

-----------------------------------------------

"Well? Here I am the morning of April 7th, 2009, after having posted extensive online references for homeopathy. I'm waiting for a response from Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University who claims to have offered to pay $10,500 for me to do a provide a physical demonstration that would identify homeopathic dilutes from their vehicle, just as Randi has offered to pay me a million for the same thing, and yet when it comes to facing the literature, numerous reports of the in vitro, in vivo, physical structure and action of homeopathic dilutes, Carlson is suddenly silent, now he has nothing to say?
He could start with an explanation, of why it is that a theoretical physicist has taken such an obstructionist view of a 200 year old doctrine that has been demonstrated biochemcially, biologically, physically and clinically.
In the face of reports from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, U of Arizona and numerous other sources that comprehensively falsify the placebo theory for homeoapthy, why isn't he spending his $10,500 to travel to Lyon France and sit at the feet of Rolland Conte to better understand the published nuclear theory for high dilutes, and witness the autoradiography test, or just read the book and do it himself? From France he could go to the University of Bologna and investigate the agronomy studies there, and the thermoluminescence test by the Italians.
What amazes me is that here a professor of theoretical physics is putting forward by ngative implication a psychological hypothesis for the action of high dilutes and not seeking to falsify it by replicating any number of tests that could easily be done on plants.
I went over the dielectric test exhaustively with this guy, trying to answer all his questions, only to read him keep putting this all back on me, as if I was the only person making in vitro claims for homeopathy, as if I was the only guy who could prove it, as if my report would be the first.
Isn't it obvious? These people like Carlson have been doing the same thing men have been doing for centuries if not the millenia. They take a position of negative authority, claiming tobe "skeptics", but somehow their impeccable reasoning is never apllied to their own suppositions.
Isn't skepticism supposed to be the position that nothing can be truly known to be true? So shouldn't true skeptics be just as skeptical of their own assertions, before putting them to the test? But if Carlson were to do that, look what he loses. He suddenly finds himself in a position of having to explain away growing evidence that contradicts him, or why it is he changed his mind if he acepts it and admit that he was wrong in asserting that there was no "science" to support the action of high dilutes. It is much easier, in the face of the science he said didn't and couldn't exist, to simply slink away, just as he's doing now.
But it's not so easy, because now he's put his foot into it again and I want him to keep it there for a while.
Why does it matter to take Carlson to task? Because Carlson presents himself as a teacher, and Carlson is typical of an attitude that has infected millions of people that makes scientific progress painfully slow and suicide high among those who take on his screwed up, self contradicting reasoning. To simply investigate any anomalous phenomenon means that inevitably you will run up against the likes of Professor Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, who will try to derail you from what constitutes real scientific inquiry. He will try to convince you that you have ulterior motives and delusions, he will ridicule you by making a phony offer to reward you for evidence while he does everything he can to complicate your investigation, to defame you, to take up your time defending your reputation, to impoverish you by making you appear incompetent or fraudulent to others.
And so this is the world we live in, full of Carlsons, dream robbers. It should be understood why it is that "skeptics" have the highest rate of suicide, and that's why people like Carlson, Randi and millions of others need to be held to account for their interference, defamation, ridicule, false offers, phony challenges and obstructionism.
JOHN BENNETH"

"So what's happened to Professor Carlson?

* Has he taken his keyboard and run?

And where are Professor Plum and the candlestick? Has he too fled to the
billiard room for skeptical games?

Besides, I'm prepared to name my villain. It's James Randi, in the
laboratory, with a test tube of diluted something in water. Would someone
please fill out an accusation form for me? I demand it!

It does wear one down to scientifically define and test a homeopathic claim.

Additionally, I have no clue where the original Randi application copy is
located. Or who filled it out the first time. Nor do I have a documented
copy of it for posting.

But I must be off, I just saw Col. Mustard heading toward the lounge with a
bottle of gin, some tonic water, and ice. Now that's a bit of homeopathic
dilution experimenting worth joining in.

JT(james scott taylor)

[Winston]

Carlson,
Who is JT? I'm not familiar with him. And what is your response to Benneth? I'm not clear as to the meaning of your last few posts. Can you clarify or summarize?

[woodwater]

Carlson,
Who is JT? I'm not familiar with him. And what is your response to Benneth? I'm not clear as to the meaning of your last few posts. Can you clarify or summarize?

james taylor.
as i said you better join skeptics forum cause they dont like my cross posting

paulo

[Winston]

Carlson,
Who is JT? I'm not familiar with him. And what is your response to Benneth? I'm not clear as to the meaning of your last few posts. Can you clarify or summarize?

james taylor.
as i said you better join skeptics forum cause they dont like my cross posting

paulo

W: Paulo? I thought you were Eric Carlson? Why don't you just answer Benneth's question here? Cross posting is legal, since it's a public forum and therefore public info.